So, anyone else notice how the photographic equipment you have with you influences the way you view your environment?
With the 70-300 zoom on my dslr I go "commando" and rush around the woods looking for motifs. With a 35 mm lens and a tripod it's a highly meditative experience. With my p&s LX5 I can almost take amazing pics blindfolded and it makes me extremely sloppy but also more playful.

I have lenses covering from 24-500mm plus TC can go to 925mm.I also have true macro lens which can go 1:1, plus extension tubes; reverse ring and macro couplings.
It means I can capture really tiny object with fine detail and get the craters of the Moon.
I also can take Near IR images with using Hoya R-72 filter.
Macro and wild-life photography is my #1 favorite.

So I can experience the world around me with such wide range of choices.

Michael Freeman has argued that photographers compose from the frame inwards (compared to "fine" artists who aren't confined by a black frame around their creations). A full-frame camera changed my view of things. An LX3's 16:9 format threw me off so much that I gave it to my daughter and I can't imagine what a medium format camera would do.

It's a pity that far too many photographers are slaves to their equipment, with all the techno-geekiness this implies. To draw an analogy, it's hard to image Picasso sidling up to Braque and saying "Nice cubes, Georges. What brush did you use?" (Actually, it isn't that hard when you think about it, but you get my point...)

OK, so none of us are Braques or Picassos, no how many "art filters" our compact boasts. I'm just wondering whether equipment limits creativity at amateur level, as opposed to fostering it.

Just a thought.

I'm pretty sure painters have the restrictions of canvas size and format at the back of their minds while composing their paintings. or at least some form of proto golden ratio. I could be wrong,

Well, considering that all the "rules" of photographic composition have been borrowed from 'fine' arts, it comes as no surprise that the same rationale applies, but photographers still have to work with what's there (despite Photoshop), not what they want to stick on the canvas. If you switch between film and digital or between crop-sensor and full-frame (as I do), or from rangefinder / medium format to 24x36, the constraints of the medium become very apparent. It has little to do with the relatively small viewfinder/pentaprism on a DSLR (never mind the hideous EVFs and LCDs on other cameras). Take a look at an Ansel Adams masterpiece. One of the many things they teach me is how dictated we are by that small 4:3 / 3:2 rectangle.

On a more technical note, I find that manual-focus lenses (mine are all primes) make me concentrate more. The result usually requires more work, but is always worth it.

The influence of equipment can also be a pain in the influence of the money you spend on them.
lets be honest. the equipments are not that cheap. i mean there are some cheap things but the best are always expensive. its a pity because those things might be an obstacle to some people achieve some development. others try with the ''cheap'' way and get amazing results.

I've my kit lens, nothing else, plus a macro add-on, which makes fake macros... I'm happy with it, and till now it had never disappointed me but the truth is if i used a real macro lens maybe the things would be different.

at last but not the least, even not having all those gadgets, lens and stuff that makes the world, I try to make the world and my world with the small things i could do...maybe some of them are not big things, but they mean the world to me. that's what photography must mean to everyone...mean the world. loved the thread

Yes, I think equipment influences our choices. At least it puts some choices out of reach (until we can afford the equipment or come up with a creative alternative to get us there). Whilst those choices remain (temporarily) unavailable, we are channelled towards making others. In my own case I took to macro photography, because I found that for a small sum of money I could have the equipment to produce some decent close ups of things that are small. I suspect that if I could have afforded the sort of long tele lenses that wingclui is talking about, my interests may have developed along the lines of shooting birds rather than bugs. In the battle between free will and determinism, I think that determinism may have more influence than we care to contemplate.

Clearly, John Stuart Mill wasn't an amateur photographer!

I had been using analog cameras for 30 years, and now comes to the Digital era. I am lucky enough to be able to us all of my old stuff on my digital DSLR. I did buy several used lenses such as the Sigma 50-500mm. I won't buy new one and can't afford them!
I make my own macro rail; a 6 inch reflector telescope; an eye piece adapter for the 500mm lens and us it as an travelling telescope.
The bottom line is that use what you cam afford and create something to use for the need, buy used item from trusty store.
Belief me, I like older lens than new one, they are better built over all. I don't need VR or IS that kind of stuff that costs money.
I spent only $100US for a used 100mm F2.8 manual macro lens, and got some pretty good macro images. Just check my blog to see for yourself. I love that lens!

I suppose there are two different aspects then, those who have a very specific, focused interest like macro or landscape experience the equipment as being enabling or restricting where as those more "free-form" photographers find their expression being channelled into what is possible.